And while staff not be at fault for players being in that situation, it is their responsibility to find a way to overcome the mindset in general.
I do think that I described a sizable percentage of the playerbase.
So this will always be an issue within the game.

Your comment comes off as "Your not good enough to play here, come back when you grow a pair." Which is just as disrespectful of a paraphrasing.

I apologize, that was badly worded. I shouldn't forum before breakfast.

What I was attempting to say is that "Cfelch's argument sounds a lot like this argument here, which I dislike" and what it kind of came out as was "screw this guy"; never meant to personally insinuate that that was literally what you were saying or make it about your beliefs about your plot level. Sorry about that.

In no way do I want my post to be interpreted as you must be this awesome to play here, but saying that you are too emotionally withdrawn to go out engage in plot that exists is not a fault of the system, but with the player. That part I stand by. You cannot plot your way past the lowest common denominator. While it is the staff's job to create plot, it's also the player's job to go forth and engage it, if they want to be involved.

ThinkTwice wrote:As much as SoI allows you to play whatever personality type you want, if you're interested in getting plot, being proactive, and exploring things, you should probably build a PC who is interested in getting plot, being proactive, and exploring things.

I don't disagree, although I do think the seemingly ordinary soul drawn on to greater things in spite of their natural reluctance can make for a very Tolkien-esque plot arc.

Of course, the flip side of this is that sometimes a plot just isn't your cup of tea, OOCly speaking. There's something to be said for a light touch from admins -- giving people opportunities to choose when and where to involve their characters, rather than shoving every player into every plot.

Gobbo wrote:3. The hillmen were a good little mini-sphere and they created some tension and interesting rp. I realize they were doomed but the way it was done was just stupid. The staff loaded up npcs and basically closed down the hillmen. What should have happened was the npcs leadership of Utterby should have ordered the PC guard to do it instead. The hillmen got cheated, they didn't have a chance. Frankly it discourages anyone else from creating such a player run plot as the hillmen.

At the time, the hillmen were the foremost combat experts in the game. Good builds, master-level skills, mostly composed of players who were highly proficient at PVP, and often beyond the Guard in terms of gear.

Honestly, if they had gotten all the Guard PCs together and duked it out with the Leonas, I'm near-certain it would've resulted in the whole Guard clan dying and the hillmen taking over the town, or at least very heavy casualties on both sides and some kind of truce. It seems like this was the only way staff could have dealt with the threat reasonably. (it had become one, with the murder, whatever the moral ground)

They had to consolidate, react with IC consequence, and not destroy the balance of orcs vs humans, which would've tipped far in the favor of the former if there had been a huge massacre in human civil war.

Everything gets smaller now the further that I go
Towards the mouth and the reunion of the known and the unknown
Consider yourself lucky if you think of it as home
You can move mountains with your misery if you don't

When we discuss alienating players, I'll note that some of the comments here that poke in the general direction of "I know what players are best for this game, and you aren't really it ..." is likely not helpful to making people feel welcome. Or determine who is or isn't "epic" - something not everyone defines the same.

So let's try and steer more towards suggestions and less of that?

I'll also note that "proactively" as a positive tends to only extent as far as people's ability to work with others proactively. You can be the most "go get'em" person imagined, but if you've spun up a PC (or it's a bleed through or your own personality) wherein you are hamstrung by your inability to play nice with others in order to be successful in your proactivity, that's an issue.

And certainly one I see a lot more these days. Where people are easily offended, take a lot personally, and then dig a hole rather than compromise. Which as an individual position can make for amazing, immersion but when it seems the default position of everyone, less so. It loses its unique touch.

Man, at this point, I'm taking things step by step. First I'd like to inspire people as to taking their play seriously, and so far with the people I've interacted with, taking your own time logged in seriously seems to work really well. People put just a smidgen more effort into their roleplay, far as I can tell, when I do the little things that count.

Then, you know, I'll take that blossom and carry it into the other sphere, far as I can observe it anyway.

There's a LOT more problems at hand that can just so easily be listed, and the ones I take personal issue with aren't really all that easy to dismiss with a "if you just did this..."

So really, if I can grind at the millstone a while longer and erode the following issues:

1) Put the Role Play Intensive BACK Into RPI. Every day spent logged in where you haven't worried about whether you were going south or north, east or west, checked score, skills or whether you got a crafting branch, and rather, wondered how you would connect that "north" command into your roleplay, and what it would lead into in terms of thoughts, feelings and emotes.

There's just a really, huge, gaping chasm I'd refer to as "lack of depth", and while some people, I'm sure, are quietly but insistently keeping to that level of quality, and they do themselves, at least, credit, it's really something everyone should be inspired into, and at least attempting. But since I've fallen into the same dull trap of letting gameplay overrule roleplay, especially given my outspoken concerns on the forums, I understand better than anyone what it's like to "lose the magic".

2) Make interactions between spheres that amount to more than a few minutes of tense roleplay before soul crushingly brief and dumb combat code erodes all the work put into the scene. Pretty sure it won't be that hard. I mean, for the people who matter. If I run into twinks, I'll kill them without compunction and expect nothing less than the same if someone ever spies me doing something sketchy.

Not really an issue...unless you're an admin who has to deal with me.

3) Be irritatingly present on the forum when it counts. Sometimes you just need a little bit of WorkerDrone let into your heart.

Not too much though. Not too much.

I hope you die right now, will you drink my chemical?

Brian wrote:See, the thing that I admire about WorkerDrone is that he's an optimist!

Frigga: I am not blasting you in the post below. Please do not think that I am. There are some things about this last post of yours that are very concerning to me, though, and I'd like to address them frankly.

When we discuss alienating players, I'll note that some of the comments here that poke in the general direction of "I know what players are best for this game, and you aren't really it ..." is likely not helpful to making people feel welcome. Or determine who is or isn't "epic" - something not everyone defines the same.

So let's try and steer more towards suggestions and less of that?

I don't think anyone's pointed their fingers at anyone else in this thread. If it makes you feel better, we could refer directly to the RPP Tier Guide, which is in place to put a value on players' contributions to the gameworld through their roleplay and proactivity. Because that's totally its purpose, this official staff policy.

I'm not trying to offend you, or anyone, Frigga. But this "you're okay, I'm okay, we're all equally okay" attitude isn't doing us any favors.

All players have value. They all contribute. This isn't about making anyone feel bad about their contributions.

I'll also note that "proactively" as a positive tends to only extent as far as people's ability to work with others proactively. You can be the most "go get'em" person imagined, but if you've spun up a PC (or it's a bleed through or your own personality) wherein you are hamstrung by your inability to play nice with others in order to be successful in your proactivity, that's an issue.

Why do we need to play nice with others? What is wrong with IC conflict? What does the last half of that final sentence there even mean?

Why Frigga, are you so against IC conflict in the human sphere? Why can't it just be embraced, so long as it provides interesting story? This is exactly the sort of mentality that contributes to this thread, IMO; without IC conflict, the gameworld becomes boring for many players who know that most good stories (particularly fantasy stories) include interesting conflict between characters.

And certainly one I see a lot more these days. Where people are easily offended, take a lot personally, and then dig a hole rather than compromise. Which as an individual position can make for amazing, immersion but when it seems the default position of everyone, less so. It loses its unique touch.

I don't know what this really refers too, either. The Hillmen? My character refusing to compromise and allow his people to be forced to become citizens of Utterby, and give up Baros to the Guard? Choosing to fight (and likely die) over compromise?

There was nothing personal that I took from that scenario, if so. I just made the IC decision for my character, and besides that the rest of Utterby wasn't a part of how things ended, was fairly happy with the resolution and arc of that. It ended in a way that made narrative sense, whether it was intended to be that way or not. If I'd taken it personally, I wouldn't be here. :p

If it refers to something else, my apologies. It's just a little vague.

Last edited by Songweaver on Thu Mar 05, 2015 7:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

Great points WorkerDrone, and point 1 especially resonates with me. It's very easy to get caught up in the grind and the crafts you have to do and the tasks you have to fulfil. If the concern has become increasingly about your skill levels or your gear or any of those concerns it can be really beneficial to try and get back to the essence, motivations, and relationships that your character has. Digging I to any one of those facets for awhile and forgetting about the more games elements can really increase enjoyment in a character.

I think you're right about the extensively games tone of forum conversation right job too. There's so much conversation about PvP, item balancing, racial stats and all the rest and not so much about immersing into a character or how to find out more about your character or what to do in a rut. Might be time to try and get into that aspect more.

I feel like I will continue to defend my point of view when it comes to what goes on in the backend, because ultimately it will effect how much I enjoy the game, how I'm motivated into action in certain regards, and my ability to respond to others. If I feel like certain decisions staff makes will limit my freedom without really offering me anything in return, not even a modicum of anything, I will pretty fervently argue against it.

It is in my nature to point out the obvious, and the less than obvious, when I feel no one else will, even if it won't make me many friends. Perhaps some people do the same but dress it up as something else, the lack of killing intent in their posts just seems to ring to me as hollow, I suppose, easily glossed over or only nominally taken into account.

When you sort of drop a load of text on the board without any measure of tact involved, at least no one can pretend you were attempting to address anything BUT that.

So yeah, issue 3 is still gonna be an issue, because I don't know when to give up. But I think I will focus much less on "gameplay" when actually /playing/ the game, and more on roleplay, because that is the real reason I am here, and why, nominally at least? We should all be here.

I hope you die right now, will you drink my chemical?

Brian wrote:See, the thing that I admire about WorkerDrone is that he's an optimist!

Songweaver wrote:Why do we need to play nice with others? What is wrong with IC conflict? What does the last half of that final sentence there even mean?

Why Frigga, are you so against IC conflict in the human sphere? Why can't it just be embraced, so long as it provides interesting story? This is exactly the sort of mentality that contributes to this thread, IMO; without IC conflict, the gameworld becomes boring for many players who know that most good stories (particularly fantasy stories) include interesting conflict between characters.

I have to really, really agree with this. There seems to be an idea going around that sparking conflict is some sort of OOC abrasiveness. Stories have recurring antagonists, they have antiheros, they have grey, but I feel like people pile on the hate, both IC and OOC, for the firestarters and shit disturbers who go out on a limb, risk their PC and play an honestly very difficult role.

Chill guys.

Through conflict or cooperation, we're here to write a collaborative story.

Everything gets smaller now the further that I go
Towards the mouth and the reunion of the known and the unknown
Consider yourself lucky if you think of it as home
You can move mountains with your misery if you don't

Aren't the humans the ones with the strength of will and social spirit enough to see they have problems and conflict but make the effort for the greater good of the community to get over their personal preferences/dislikes for the advancement and safety of their brethren as a whole?

I may be wrong, but I kind of thought that was the sort of thing the human sphere was supposed to use to their benefit, While orcs and 'evil races' crippled their own forces with infighting and plotting for personal gain or that shiny bit of proverbial bling.

Sure, Billy Bob might want to crush John Boy's skull for getting to bang Betty Lou, but he knows it's not the right thing to do and hey there's something that's a threat to all life in the town he might just have to get over himself and put on a helmet and grab a pike and stand shoulder to shoulder with John Boy to get things done.

Also, conflict doesn't have to mean murder. Murder's sort of the extreme end on the conflict scale.

In a scene, conflict is the result of two or more characters with opposing goals attempting to reach their goals and facing obstacles from the other character(s). Playwrights and actors know that the best scenes understand this. Roleplayers know the same. It isn't something that we should shy away from. Do you only watch movies or read books where everyone gets along, and no one opposes anyone else? It's not like Tolkien wrote about humans that had no inter-species conflict.

A lot of people do not like conflict in real life. They'll shy away from it, or avoid it when possible. But this is a fantasy story, and we're all collaborating, and we need to separate our joint story from our OOC feelings whenever possible. That's the very least that we can all do to try to make SOI be as good as it can be, staff and player alike.

Real wrote:At the time, the hillmen were the foremost combat experts in the game. Good builds, master-level skills, mostly composed of players who were highly proficient at PVP, and often beyond the Guard in terms of gear.

Honestly, if they had gotten all the Guard PCs together and duked it out with the Leonas, I'm near-certain it would've resulted in the whole Guard clan dying and the hillmen taking over the town,

Real wrote:At the time, the hillmen were the foremost combat experts in the game. Good builds, master-level skills, mostly composed of players who were highly proficient at PVP, and often beyond the Guard in terms of gear.

Honestly, if they had gotten all the Guard PCs together and duked it out with the Leonas, I'm near-certain it would've resulted in the whole Guard clan dying and the hillmen taking over the town,

So close. Sooooo close!

And how grand and different Utterby might've been. :p
[/sidenote]

The difference between those who play and those who' know hiw to play'.

I would also move that the hillmen had by far the highest standard for RP and depth at the time, and that in all my interactions with them I was always left wanting more and wondering what would happen next, and some of them had some beautiful prose, honestly. I'm not sure where the hillman-hate is coming from dude, they were overall a very positive addition to the game.

Everything gets smaller now the further that I go
Towards the mouth and the reunion of the known and the unknown
Consider yourself lucky if you think of it as home
You can move mountains with your misery if you don't

The difference between those who play and those who' know hiw to play'.

Does this sentence actually mean something?

Do not act as if you do not know. The correct builds, the right people, needed skills and a sympathetic ear all wrapped up in to one nicely wrapped package. It is not the first time this has happened.

I do not discount the rp quality, what i discount is that often SW's minispheres are done at the expense of those not able or wanting to join his group.

Honestly, you're overstating the coded competence, OOC connection, and intentional malice of almost all involved. I can name 2-3 players involved who had the combat prowess/skill(OOC and IC) of a wet blanket. The Death's Heads committed the same 'sin' that the Hillmen did back on Atonement, becoming 'too powerful' for the concept(and far too soon for the individual PCs), so don't think that I think they're blameless(or that I am!).

That said, give it a rest. You're always beating your chest, telling everyone to stop being bad for the community and venomous, and how terrible they are, and man they've got grudges against you, and wouldn't it be nice if...just let it go. Own your own damn statements and maybe stop being needlessly hostile and personal.

The Hillmen had a ton of faults, but they were the faults of someone in love with the game and in love with their concept, just trying to bring something to the game. Their sin wasn't becoming powerful 'at the expense' of other people/players, it became powerful at the expense of the concept itself. It became powerful at the expense of Utterby's THEME, sure. The Hillmen were too powerful, even given the 'friends in high places'/skilled PCs they befriended/earned/absorbed, sure.

But just because someone is powerful and adversarial doesn't mean it's at your expense. It's not a problem if you've got enemies, it's an ADVANTAGE. It's a reason to log in. It's one of the things that drives the game and brings people to log in. As long as someone's actually willing to still roleplay with you while they're your enemy...it's an addition to the game, not a subtraction. It's a rising tide that floats all boats.

Antagonists characters are great when played well. Unfortunately we have some antagonistic players that are trying to play antagonistic characters for no other reason than to be antagonistic and failing miserably.

This type of player always shines through as being antagonistic through subtle hobbitmails or other ooc communications that are antagonistic as well.

I think the gun comes out pretty quick on the draw for who's antagonistic and who's not, based on pretty limited evidence. I might be thinking of something different though.

Everything gets smaller now the further that I go
Towards the mouth and the reunion of the known and the unknown
Consider yourself lucky if you think of it as home
You can move mountains with your misery if you don't